Bichitra Lal Das Vs the State of Assam

Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.

¶17

2. By this criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), the petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat (“hereinafter referred to as the “appellate court”), whereby the appeal against conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) was partly allowed. The appellate court set aside the conviction under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“hereinafter referred to as the IPC”), altered the same to Section 426 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and reduced the sentence under Section 447 IPC to simple imprisonment for one month.

¶20

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an ejahar was lodged alleging that on 12.11.2008 at about 8:30 AM, the accused/petitioner, along with others, trespassed into the premises of the complainant, abused him, damaged two vehicles by breaking their glass with a khukri, and assaulted him. Accordingly, Jorhat P.S. Case No. 589/2008 was registered under Sections 447/294/427/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial.

¶21

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances but adduced no defence evidence. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of three months on each count, to run concurrently.

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

5. In appeal, the appellate court, upon reappreciation of the evidence, partly allowed the appeal by converting the conviction under Section 427 IPC to Section 426 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and reducing the sentence under Section 447 IPC to one month’s simple imprisonment.

¶24

6. Mr. D. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the incident arose out of a family monetary dispute and that there was no intention to cause harm. It is urged that, having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner ought to have been extended the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶25

7. Per contra, Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the evidence clearly establishes that the petitioner arrived armed with a dao and attempted to assault the complainant, and upon failing, caused damage to the vehicles. It is contended that in such circumstances, the benefit of probation is unwarranted, particularly when the sentence has already been substantially reduced.

¶26

8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record.

¶27

9. At the outset, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope. The power under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only in cases of jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, gross procedural irregularity, or perversity in findings. The revisional court does not

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

reappreciate evidence as an appellate court unless such findings suffer from patent illegality.

¶30

10. In the present case, the conviction under Sections 447/426 IPC is borne out by the evidence on record. No jurisdictional error or perversity in appreciation of evidence has been demonstrated. The only issue urged relates to the sentence. The testimony of PW-1, duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, establishes that the accused approached the complainant armed with a dao, concealed behind his back. Upon suddenly brandishing the weapon, the complainant was compelled to retreat inside his house. Thereafter, the accused caused damage to the vehicles parked in the compound, including breaking the windshield. Minor discrepancies regarding the extent of damage do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

¶31

11. The question that arises is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of probation. While the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are intended to reform offenders in appropriate cases, the same cannot be invoked mechanically. The nature of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the conduct of the accused are relevant considerations.

¶32

12. In the present case, the petitioner was armed with a dangerous weapon and had approached the complainant in an aggressive manner. The act cannot be said to be a mere trivial altercation. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of probation.

¶33

13. As regards the sentence, the appellate court has already

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

exercised leniency by reducing the sentence from three months to one month. No ground is made out warranting further interference.

¶36

14. In view of the above, no case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out.

¶37

15. The criminal revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

16. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.